Should art be taught in schools?

Abstract

The role played by art in public education has been discussed and analyzed by a numerous commentators through the years. Despite the obvious ways in which art and receiving an art education can provide to an individual, it is possible to argue that art education is not indispensable, as there are a number of arguments why art should not be included as a subject in public education. This paper will look at this elements in order to provide an outline of the possible reasons why art should not be regarded as important as other disciplines like Maths or English in the context of public education.

In the context of the global crisis of today's world, the investment in the public education sector in providing their students with an art education can be questioned. Career prospects are not as profitable for art students as they used to be. Art is not appreciated as in the past. Using a conflict theoretical perspective, art has simply become a commodity.

This has been evident since decades, but in the context of today's world, this has become very evident. Art works are no longer unique. Prints have taken the place once held by canvas. It is no longer important for people to have an original art work. All products (including art products) are standardized. There is no place for individuality, no place for creativity. Everything has become standard. All art works are predictable.

As Theodor Adorno (1944) prophesied in his sociological studies on mass culture, the culture industry has become an assembly line filled with standardized art products. The purpose of learning a wide range of artistic skills is all art is manufactured and not creative. Why should you devote time to learn how to develop music skills when all successful music is repetitive, similar and monotonous? Why to learn about art history when today's art is massively re-produced?